World War II Battles - Essay Example

Part I: World War II Battles Battle of Britain The Battle of Britain involved a sustained air attack on Britain by Germany between July and September 1940 and decidedly provided the Allies with an advantage over the Axis. The Allie’s advantage arises out of the fact that Germany’s air attack was designed to gain air superiority over Britain and the latter’s defence defeated Germany’s attempt. Had Germany been successful, Britain would have been invaded and the Axis would have in all likelihood won World War II (James & Cox, 2000). War in the Balkans Although the Axis were initially successful in the invasion of the Balkans, it was ultimately the Allies that gained an advantage over their enemies. The Balkans’ invasion was meant to open up borders to facilitate the Axis’s invasion of the Soviet Union. However, resistance from two main ethnic groups in the Balkans and ethnic conflicts in the Balkans complicated the Axis’s efforts and these incidents culminated to hold the Axis at bay until the Red Army arrived holding the Axis back until Germany finally surrendered (Bishop, 2008). Pearl Harbor The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor secured a major advantage for the Axis during World War II. The surprise attack achieved its intended purpose: to destabilise the Allies’ Pacific Fleet and to give Japan the time and space it needed to invade South-East Asia. Although the Allies would ultimately defeat Japan and the Axis, the Axis were able to take advantage of the damages to the Pacific Fleet and did indeed invade South-East Asia (Fuller, 1993). Battle of the Coral Sea The Allies gained a significant advantage in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War during the Battle of the Coral Sea against the Axis. During the Battler of the Coral Sea, both the Axis and the Allies would sustain significant damages. However, the damages sustained by the Axis were far greater than the Allies and as a result severely limited their participation in the Pacific Theater against the Allies (Henry, 2003). Battle of the Midway The Battle of Midway provided the Allies with its most important advantage during the Second World War in the Pacific Theater against the Axis. Japan sustained major damages to its navy from which it did not fully recover during the Battle of Midway. From this point on, Japan remained on the defensive rather than on the offensive. Thus the Battle of Midway was a turning point for the Axis during the Second World War in the Pacific Theater (Isom, 2007). Part 2: Fidel Castro: Annotated Timeline 1959: Through a guerrilla war, Fidel Castro overthrew Cuba’s military dictator Batista and was sworn in as Cuba’s Prime Minister (History Television, 2012). 1960: Castro immediately set the stage for the creation of a communist state, the first in the Western Hemisphere. In setting the stage for establishing a communist state, Castro nationalised businesses owned by the US which included oil refineries, casinos and factories. This lead to the US terminating diplomatic relations with Cuba and implementing trade sanctions (History Television, 2012). 1961: Castro made a public announcement that he was a Marxist-Leninist. This announcement coincided with Cuba’s increasing economic and military dependence on the Soviet Union (History Channel, 2012). October 1962: The US learned that Cuba was in possession of nuclear weapons and this led to a confrontation which was ultimately resolved by an agreement between the Soviet Union and the US. This was an agreement that Castro did not consent to. December 1962: Castro freed Cuban exiles who having been trained and supported by the CIA landed near the Bay of Pigs with the intention of ousting Castro. The exiles were unsuccessful and were captured by Castro’s army. Castro released the exiles for “medical supplies and baby food worth about US$ 52 million” (History Channel, 2012). 1965: Castro merged his revolutionary parties with Cuba’s Communist Party and appointed himself the amalgamated party’s leader (Bio True Story, 2012). 1966: As a part of his campaign to support armed resistance to imperialism in Africa and Latin America, Castro formed the Asia-Africa-Latin America People’s Solidarity Organization for promoting anti-imperialism on those three continents (Bio True Story, 2012). 1967: Castro founded the Latin America Solidarity Organization to promote revolution in certain countries in Latin America (Bio True Story, 2012). 1970s: Castro became the self-appointed “leading spokesperson” for pro-Soviet Third World states by sending military support to Angola, Yemen and Ethiopia. 1980: Castro permitted exiled Cubans to return to Cuba via the port of Mariel to retrieve their loved-ones (Bio True Story, 2012). 1996: With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba suffered significant economic difficulties. In 1996 after having legalized the US dollar and opening its doors to US tourism, Castro visited the US and invited Cuban exiles to return and to take up business operations in Cuba (Bio True Story, 2012). 2001: Following the devastation of Hurricane Michelle, Castro refused humanitarian assistance from the US, but agreed to purchase food. In the meantime, fuel supplies were rapidly declining and Castro responded by closing 118 factories and dispatched several thousand Cuban doctors to Venezuela “in exchange for oil imports” (Bio True Story, 2012). Part 3: From World War to Cold War Having regard to the dynamics of the Cold War, it is very likely that the Cold War would have developed as it had, if the US had emerged from the Second World War as economically and physically devastated as the Soviet Union had. The Cold War was a conflict in political ideologies that was characterized by suspicion, mistrust, intolerance and patriotism on the part of the US and the Soviet Union (Whitfield, 1996). If anything, had the US emerged from the Second World War just as physically and economically devastated as the Soviet Union, its intolerance, suspicion and mistrust of the Soviet Union would have likely been more poignant. The Soviet Union likewise may have likely been more aggressive in its attempt to gain world dominance. In any event, had the US been physically and economically devastated by the Second World War, it is expected that the US would have rebounded quickly. In the meantime, the US would have acted with the same commitment to containing communism and more especially the Soviet’s effort to spread communism. After all, the Soviet Union was able to pursue world dominance and establish itself as a formidable US rival for world dominance despite its physical and economic devastation in the wake of the Second World War. There is no reason to expect that the US would not have been able to rival the Soviet Union for World dominance in much the same way that the Soviet Union was able to despite the damages sustained as a result of the Second World War. The reality of the Cold War informs that the rivalry and ideological conflicts arose out of mistrust. This mistrust and suspicion was built on institutional and political differences that persisted regardless of physical and economic factors. The US supported and continues to support free and transparent elections, democracy, capitalism, individual freedoms and freedom of expression and conscience. The Soviet Union on the other hand did not support free and transparent elections. Moreover, leadership was autocratic and the political system was based on capitalism. Moreover, rather than supporting individual freedoms, Soviet society was controlled by the secret police. Freedom of expression and conscience was also unknown to the Soviet Union. Instead, the Soviet Union practiced absolute censorship (Whitfield, 1996). It was these differences that separated the US and the Soviet Union and created the rivalries that characterized the Cold War. Complicating matters, the Soviet Union was in possession of large armed forces and the US emerged from the Second World War in possession of the world’s first nuclear weapon: the atomic bomb (Whitfield, 1996). Thus, it is expected that the mutual fear and mistrust that characterised the Cold War would have remained the same had the US exited the Second World War physically and economically devastated. The only difference the US physical and economic devastation may have made to the manner in which the Cold War proceeded would have been in the time it took for the US to act on its fears and mistrust. Obviously, the US would have had to focus on rebuilding its nation. However, as previously noted, the US with its resources would have likely completed the rebuilding process quickly enough. It is also expected that the rivalry with the Soviet Union would have always been on the US’s agenda. Efforts to contain Soviet communism and to gain allies would have only intensified and gained momentum once the US rebounded from the devastation of the Second World War. Part 4: History of Consumer Goods Companies During Wartime Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant, Richmond, California The Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant of Richmond, California was established in 1930 during the Great Depression and was the largest of its kind in on the US’s West Coast. The company made significant contributions to the economy in its immediate and surrounding areas. It also represented a significant part of Richmond’s harbour and port development plans. The Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant in Richmond also emerged as among Richmond’s biggest employers after Standard Oil and the Santa Fe Railroad (National Park Services, n.d.). Photo showing the Ford Motor Assembly Plant in Richmond, California, during World War two (National Park Services, n.d.). As a part of its plans to utilize industries in the US in preparation for the Second World War, the production of vehicles for civilian use was temporarily banned by the US President, Roosevelt. In response, Ford’s Richmond Assembly Plant temporarily switched its production from civilian automobile assembly to the assembling of jeeps and to: putting the finishing touches on tanks, half-tracked armored personnel carriers, armored cars and other military vehicles destined for the Pacific Theater (National Park Services, n.d.). By 1942 Military combat vehicles were pouring into the Ford Assembly Plant in Richmond for finishing touches prior to transport to the “deep-water channel to the war zones” (National Park Service, n.d.). As the war effort intensified and Ford’s role in the war effort likewise intensified, the Richmond Plant became known as the “Richmond Tank Depot”(National Park Service, n.d.). Picture of workers at Ford’s Richmond Assembly Plant assembling a light military tank (National Park Service, n.d.). There were two main changes taking place during the Second World War that would have impacted working conditions at Ford’s Richmond Assembly Plant. First, the highly sensitive nature of the work being conducted in that it was the handling and assembling of military equipment, meant that government officials were closely involved in the monitoring of the work at the plant. Obviously, before and after the war the private owners of the company could run the company as they saw fit without government interference (Chapman, 2010). Secondly, with more and more young men leaving the country to join the war effort abroad, there was a labor shortage at home. Not only were more women joining the labor force to make up the shortfall, but workers had to work longer hours and more days than they would have before and after the war (Chapman, 2010). Therefore, the Ford Richmond Assembly Plant’s working conditions would have seen more female workers and workers laboring long hours and logging more work days. Moreover, there would have been close government supervision and involvement in the workplace. Once the Second World War ended, Ford’s Richmond Assembly Plant resumed its normal assembling of civilian vehicles. The Richmond plant made a significant contribution to the local economy following the war and had it not been for the plant continuing its normal business the local economy might have been entirely devastated with the closing of the a major shipyard. However, the plant eventually closed in 1956 as it was unable to satisfy increasing supply demands (National Park Service, n.d.). Part 5: The British Commonwealth At the initial formation of the British Commonwealth in 1931, factors determining the decision to become a member of the Commonwealth were tied to the Commonwealth’s constitution. The Constitution was founded on four pillars of unity: “autonomy, equality, common allegiance and free association” (Zeleza, 2003, p. 115). The founding members of the British Commonwealth aside from Britain, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Notably, the five states aligning themselves with Britain under the British Commonwealth were former white colonies with relatively strong economic and military standing. These states forming the British Commonwealth were decidedly equal to Britain and not necessarily dependent on Britain for support. It would appear that initially, the British Commonwealth was intended to redefine the British Empire in terms of strengthening Britain through alliances rather than based on imperialism. The initial members of the Commonwealth obviously retained some loyalty to the British crown and joined forces to pursue common goals. However, as Zeleza (2003) points out not all strong independent white former colonies joined the British Commonwealth in 1931. The USA chose not to become a member and it is speculated that the USA did not need an alliance with the British Commonwealth to pursue its own goals and may have seen itself as superior to the members in terms of economic and military strength. Therefore the four pillars of the Commonwealth’s Constitution did not apply to the USA. A second phase of Commonwealth membership occurred in the aftermath of the Second World War. At the time more and more former British colonies began to gain independence and a significant qualifier for joining the Commonwealth was a country having independence (Zeleza, 2003). The main factors contributing to the decision to join the Commonwealth after gaining independence was loyalty to the Crown, the need for technical support and the benefits of the removal of trade tariffs among members (Zeleza, 2003). It therefore follows that newly independent states with developing or underperforming economies would have a major incentive to join the British Commonwealth. Some former colonies however did not join the British Commonwealth after gaining independence. Notably, Egypt and Sudan did not join the British Commonwealth as a result of the influence of Arab nationalism. These Arab states took the position that joining the British Commonwealth was tantamount to supporting a “former imperial power” that was arguably supporting Israel (Zeleza, 2003, p. 115). It has also been argued that it was entirely undesirable to join the British Commonwealth because the latter: Was a sign of neo-colonialism, a sign of dependency, and used to inflate Britain’s influence in the World (Zelea, 2003, p. 116). In the final analysis, states became members of the British Commonwealth depending on whether or not they wished to maintain links established during colonialism. The decision to maintain those links were tied to just how independent states were once they obtained independence or just how loyal they were to the Crown. For the most part, states would be persuaded by economic and political alliances and dependence/independence. In many cases, national pride would trump all economic and technical needs. Part 6: Letter to Historical Leader Dear Mr. Anwar Sadat, It has been more than thirty years since your assassination and yet your legacy and influence on the direction of Egypt remains strong and instructive (Council on Foreign Relations, 2011). The Peace Treaty that you signed with Israel, ultimately caused your death, yet this peace treaty remains in effect today (Council on Foreign Relations, 2011). It is also important that you know that your efforts to open Egypt’s economy to the private sector is now realising its benefits as Egypt enters an open market economy and rejects the previous socialists ideology that dominated during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s (Wright, 2011). Hosni Mubarak, who took over your office after your assassination, maintained your tradition of peace with Israel and alignment with an open market economy. Notably, Mubarak continued with your drive to maintain foreign relations and intimate diplomatic cooperation with the West, especially the USA. However, the recent Arab Spring impacting a number of Arab states presents a challenge to your legacy despite the fact that the Arab Spring calls for democratic institutions (Wright, 2011). Former Prime Minister for a short term following the Arab Spring Revolution in Egypt, Prime Minister Essam Sharaf stated that the peace treaty with Israel was not written in stone and that it could be changed for the sake of peace in the region (Wright, 2011). There have been various uprisings among the people of Egypt seeking to sever all ties with Israel and calling for the removal of the Israel Embassy (Wright, 2011). While peace with Israel is not by itself the cornerstone of your legacy, it represents your legacy of democratic economic and political reform via close relations with the USA and the West generally. The peace treaty with Israel opened the door for democratic reforms as it was a condition of military and economic aid from the USA. During your tenure, US military and economic aid to Egypt was approximately US$2 billion. Today that aid has been reduced to 1.5$US billion, but continues to be among the largest in terms of US aid to any other country. This aid has been particularly important for safeguarding against the kinds of turmoil that erupted such as the bread riots 1977 (Wright, 2011). Cumulatively, your legacy of peace with Israel and an open market economy has resulted in significant peace, despite Arab nationalism in the region. In fact, US Defense Secretary Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a visit to Cairo last year made a connection between your legacy and the Egyptian revolution. Panaetta stated that you died: ...for the cause of peace...now the people of Egypt have the opportunity to build on that important legacy that Anwar Sadat established (Wright, 2011). Nageh Ibrahim, a top member of an Islamic group in Egypt agrees with Panettta’s statement. Ibrahim argued that it is your reforms that enabled the Islamic movement to express its feelings. This freedom of expression was facilitated by your abrogation of torture and emergency law. The freedoms that you established in democratic reforms drove the 2011 Egyptian revolution. This revolution was a call for democratic reforms, something you introduced 30 years ago and ultimately died for. In other words, your vision for Egypt lives on and remains a driving force in Egypt today. Bibliography Bio True Story. Fidel Castro Biography. 2012. http://www.biography.com/people/fidel-castro-9241487?page=4 (Retrieved 19 July, 2012). Bishop, C. German Panzers in World War II. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2008. Council on Foreign Relations. The New Arab Revolt: What Happened, What it Means and What Comes Next. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations, 2011. Fuller, J. F. C. The Second World War, 1939-1945: A Strategical and Tactical History. New York, NY: First Da Capa Press, 1993. Henry, C. The Battle of the Coral Sea. London, UK: Compendium Publishing, 2003. History Channel. Fidel Castro. 2012. http://www.history.com/topics/fidel-castro (Retrieved 19 July, 2012). Isom, D. W. Midway Inquest: Why the Japanese Lost the Battle of Midway. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007. James, T. C. G. and Cox, S. The Battle of Britain. London, UK: Frank Cass Publishers, 2000. National Park Service. Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant. (n.d.). http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wwiibayarea/for.HTM (Retrieved 19 July, 2012). Whitfield, S. J. The Culture of the Cold War. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Wright, J. “Analysis: Egypt Revolution Chips Away at Sadat’s Legacy.” Reuters, 6 October, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/06/us-egypt-sadat-anniversary-idUSTRE7951WL20111006 (Retrieved 19 July, 2012). Zeleza, P. T. “Commonwealth”. In, Zeleza, T. and Dickson, E. (Eds.). Encylopedia of Twentieth Century African History. London, UK: Routledge, 2003. Read More